W’s needs
should be met in that way. I can however bear them in mind to the extent of having the comfort that if W cannot live within the budget that I notionally provide she has it as a resource to which she can turn. 120.H has his share of the matrimonial home [£2.57m] and I include the Cyprus property as an asset available to him. His explanation of placing it in the name of his son to help him obtain a Cypriot passport when he had already obtained one as his father’s dependent was unconvincing. Further, H provided all the funds for the purchase at the time that the financial proceedings were ongoing and it is hard to see how the transaction might not be set aside if that relief was sought. Its net value is taken at £687k.121.H owes his solicitors some £170k, leaving him with assets exclusive of the Foundation and business assets of £3.087m.122.I find that H is the beneficial owner of the Foundation and has access to its assets. There is remaining in the Foundation exclusive of the monies already loaned to him assets worth some £17-19m, albeit recently revised down by ND to £13m, largely by writing off the restaurant loan and by currency movements. I think it probable that the value lies within the bracket first given but that there is a substantial amount of current illiquidity. 123.I also find him to have an interest in the German and Russian businesses in a sum that I cannot determine. 124.H was confident about his financial future and his ability to access funds as required. I am sure that his confidence was justified. 125.W says that by reason of H’s inadequate disclosure I should draw robust and adverse inferences. I have made it clear that I am satisfied that H does have both business interests and access to assets which he has not disclosed but inferences need to have a proper factual substratum. As I hope that I have shown, I am not satisfied that I can or should infer that these are so significant or that H is so wealthy that W’s case as to her needs should be assessed at the upper end of the bracket as I am asked to do. Offers126.W seeks a transfer of the home and a lump sum of £3.8m. She calculates that this will provide her with £174k pa on a Duxbury basis. She can adjust if she wishes by downsizing and increasing her income budget. 127.H offers to forego all repayments due to him but only if his offer of W retaining her half of the home, and nothing more, is accepted. W’s needs128.W is very keen to stay in the property and my award may not force her to sell the property immediately but I do not regard it as being reasonable in terms of meeting her needs against the background of what is not a long marriage and when within a fairly short time her daughter will be taking steps towards independence. 129.In the best traditions of this case both parties put in particulars at the two extremes. W proposed properties on the market at well in excess of £4m and H proposed properties at under £1.5m. In their different ways both were inappropriate. I asked the parties at the outset to produce up to 6 particulars of properties in the middle range of between £2-£3.5m. which they did at the end of the case.130.I accept that it would be reasonable for W to live in a purpose-built apartment building in a good and safe area of Hampstead/Highgate. She will need a 3 bedroomed property, as she now has, but I do not see the requirement for her to have the facility of a swimming pool/gym within the development, although many such developments may provide that. 131.I have studied the various particulars put before me at the end of the trial. H’s are all less than half the size of the current home. They are in less attractive areas than those in which the parties have lived in London. They are simply too downmarket to be appropriate to this case. W’s particulars are of properties which are smaller and slightly less attractively situated than the current home. She does not put them forward as what she wants, which is to stay where she is. 132.I conclude that a proper sum for W’s housing is £3m plus expenses of purchase, moving, setting up and SDLT which I calculate at a total of
- The Honourable Mr Justice Cohen :
- The History in more detail
- When did the marriage end?
- Legal proceedings
- The purpose of Part III
- which was the alleviation of the adverse consequences of no, or no adequate, financial provision being made by a foreign court in a situation where there were substantial connections with England
- Where the English connections of the case are very strong there may be no reason why the application should not be treated as if it were made in purely English proceedings
- H’s business activities
- The move to London
- The Foundation
- my death or physical or mental incapacity
- strictly speaking
- The German venture
- Russian projects
- W’s use of resources
- The assets of the parties
- £5.14m [£2.57m each]
- £95k
- [£2.57m
- £687k
- £3.087m
- W’s needs
- £3.4m
- £2.06m
- £320k
- Conduct of the litigation
